This made me think a bit - I imagine most of the polarization these days comes from a vocal minority of either side, and that 95%+ of people are much more relaxed about politics (and still have a sense of humour) than we imagine from the media.
So it would be interesting to see if hyperpartisans could be separated from moderates by their appearance (just to be clear, I dont believe in phrenology, I imagine its information leaking from other aspects of presentation and background).
With respect to humour, the modern lack of humor seems to focus on not offending people, which I admit I dont understand but I could guess is predicated on the feeling that laughter is somehow equated to divisive mocking, as opposed to fun. I bring this up only because it reminds me a lot of Umberto Eco's "The Name of The Rose" where the 13th century religious leaders were arguing that laughter was inappropriate, and Jesus never laughed, somehow rooted in the belief that finding humor in things admitted the possibility of laughing at aspects of religion and therefore not taking them seriously.
So it would be interesting to see if hyperpartisans could be separated from moderates by their appearance (just to be clear, I dont believe in phrenology, I imagine its information leaking from other aspects of presentation and background).
With respect to humour, the modern lack of humor seems to focus on not offending people, which I admit I dont understand but I could guess is predicated on the feeling that laughter is somehow equated to divisive mocking, as opposed to fun. I bring this up only because it reminds me a lot of Umberto Eco's "The Name of The Rose" where the 13th century religious leaders were arguing that laughter was inappropriate, and Jesus never laughed, somehow rooted in the belief that finding humor in things admitted the possibility of laughing at aspects of religion and therefore not taking them seriously.
Anyway, your comment made me think, so thanks.